I have 15 years of experience working on Top Secret programs for the government. Um, how exactly do you propose I show you my portfolio? Fortunately for me, I've been able to get three jobs in the past 5 years based on my statement that I can't show you the actual work but I can tell you what it is I made and how I made it.
Most people are terrible judges at their own learning rate, though. We all THINK we are fast learners, when very few of us are. The only way to know is by having a trial-period and a mentor.
I'm a lead. I like my two worker bees. They are both better than me at everything technical, but neither could be a lead (yet). I don't feel threatened one bit, even though I know both of them are smarter and technically more competent than me. Plus, most organizations don't replace leads without a reason, so unless I go to another position, my two guys won't get my job. If I lead like I were in fear of my job, I'd be a terrible lead.
Who is going to pick someone who is smarter than them, or who is going to give them competition for promotion?
The millions of us who are driven by competition? The millions of us who are results-oriented? The millions of us who put the greater-good ahead of personal interest? The millions of us with a little humility?
I guess I just found my new interview question, because I'd have a hard time hiring somebody with your attitude--especially as more and more projects become collaborative and team-oriented.
I quit my last job because I'd rather work with people who are smarter and more talented than I am. Being surround by dumb, untalented people makes for a very unrewarding career. The interview process at (giant tech company in the news a lot) was everything I had hoped for and I'm glad that the people I'll be working with are up to my standards.
... it were extremely difficult because almost everybody in the industry needed 3 years of full-time development experience on the resume before they'd even talk to me.
This is how it is for pretty much every non-blue collar job ever. Why do software devs think they've encountered some sort of new social phenomenon?
Go to college, get a degree, start low, gain experience, change jobs a couple of times or get promoted internally. By the time a person reaches 40 he/she will be doing fine.
All good ideas...for people with tons of free time. When you get a job doing this stuff, you get 8-10 hours a day to do it. I'm hard pressed to think of any time outside of my work hours that I have 8-10 hour blocks of time to do stuff for fun.
I thought good colleges ding you for going "above and beyond" the requirements...or at least they should. More important to your coding skills is your ability to follow directions;-)
Applications you've made because of a school project will not count.
SO not true. Most people don't have time or a even a reason to be writing code while they are in school and school projects can be the only thing you have to show if you are a recent grad.
I suppose my graduate research will not count either?
Easily solved with a decent intern program. Find the good ones before they graduate, then hire them after they graduate (at bargain salary to boot).
The geeksphere tends to forget that some jobs don't need anyone more than the guy right out of college. There's lot's of legwork that needs to be done and if you ask anyone who's been out of school for more than a couple of years to do it, they'll come on slashdot and bitch about being treated like a code monkey.
So I went to click on the link to get more details--except there's no link. For example, exactly what is wrong with the interview process, and why can't the guy actually code? Instead, I get a lame rant about Johnny can't code because he doesn't have a web site, he went to college, and HR sucks?
Seriously lame.
Hopefully the comments will be better. Imagine that, I actually wanted to read TFA for once!
I'm not saying they are finding things that don't exist, I'm saying they have EVERY INCENTIVE to do so, because regardless if the malady exists or not, they get their compensation from the insurance company. This is ruining our economy while doctors play golf and drive fancy German cars.
I suggest that a 10 minute office visit costing $150 would infer that doctors make a lot of money. I make $40 an hour and live very comfortably. Quadruple my hourly rate and I'm straight up rich. What in the world are you smoking that would make you think doctors aren't making near the money I seem to think?
Now if you'd like to have a civil conversation, I'm all ears, otherwise piss off.
I think I figured out the problem. I meant to say "myth" to this:
Only when doctors start putting costs in front of patients and when patients have to make decisions about how they spend their health care dollars will this entire situation begin to be reined in.
Myth, as in it's a myth to ever believe doctors will ever start putting costs in front of us so we can make better choices.
The intent with HDHPs is we are supposedly given bargaining power to shop around with our money. Reality is there is no such bargaining power because doctors are just like cable companies. No competition. It's even worse, there IS no price transparency like the HDHP advocates proclaim...the price is the price. My wife has had spinal fusion, a baby, and my kids have had ear tubes and pneumonia surgeries with our HDHP. In each case, the overall cost was slightly lower, based on "negotiated prices", but the costs to ME were far greater. $5000 each year for the past three years came straight out of my pocket before the insurance company paid one dime, AND I had to put in $2500 in premiums over the year. Compare that to a traditional HMO and I would have paid something like $2500 in premiums and $500-$1000 out of pocket deductible, plus 5-10 $20 co-pays. Even if that were cheaper in total, it is still ridiculous to expect the average American is going to have $5000 tucked away for their first $5k of medical expenses every year. We are fortunate, in that we have some disposable income.
They don't get you any kind of leverage in the situation. That's all determined by private pricing between doctors and insurance companies.
this is exactly right, which is why HDHPs are terrible business and awful legislation.
You are a minor percentage of your doctor's business and he has no need to cater to your needs because he's protected by insurance companies and the laws that they've helped write to force most people to go to their employers for the one size fits all plans that make insurance companies the most money.
Exactly. This is why HDHPs are a farce. This is why the Libertarians and Republicans who support them are absolutely wrong.
I recently was researching getting a vasectomy. The doctors that I went to each had done thousands of them, yet their offices could NOT tell me what the procedure would cost. No clue. How was I supposed to make an informed decision to even fund my FSA without being able to get a price on a procedure that's routine?
Exactly. How am I, as an HDHP holder, supposed to be able to shop around for the best services when there are no price tags?
If you went in to a auto shop and they couldn't tell you what it cost to get your brake pads replaced, you'd turn around and walk back out.
Wait, we totally agree. But with an HDHP, I have no option other than the very few doctors in my area who will accept my HDHP, so I can't just walk out.
You even mentioned that most doctors won't even take your plan. That alone shows that you didn't get it. If a doctor doesn't even have to accept your high deductible personal health plan then something in the system is broken.
Wait, how is it that I don't get it? I totally get it, which is why I hate my HDHP and am bitching about it right now, right along with you.
There's institutional collusion between doctors and insurance companies that current health care legislation supports in every way. It needs to be torn down and replaced with something that allows transparency, accountability, choice, efficiency, and effectiveness for each citizen.
Exactly correct. HDHPs regulations should be eliminated now. Worst piece of legislation this century.
Sorry I was vague with my "myth" comment. Otherwise I don't think there would have been a need for either of our responses;-)
I'm pretty sure you're a combative asshat who is too lazy to think about the numbers in your own post. I was expecting you to post something like, "doctors spend 25% of their earning defending against malpractice suits and insurance". Instead, you prove to us that the idea that doctors are jacking up practices to cover their malpractice costs is purely a myth.
At what point does preventative treatment start paying off? I'm 42 and an annual office visit is $150 for me for the doctor to ask me a few questions, check my respiration, hit my knew with a rubber hammer and send me off. What could he possibly find and prevent other than bad knees or a chest infection?
Myth. I have a high deductible health plan (HDHP) that is supposed to give me options and leverage. Instead, I get the same ridiculous prices by every doctor (because they are like cable companies) but I get to pay $5000 out of pocket instead of $500 with a traditional HMO. Most doctors won't even take my HDHP. HDHP is a libertarian/republican wet dream that simply doesn't work in the real wold, because there IS no competition, and there IS no flexibility in pricing.
I'm surprised not more people have blamed patients for causing more patients. That's the problem with the US system and capitalism. Marketing has created generations of patients. We are overly medicated, hypochondriacs, thanks to the great pharma-commercials! The basic premise of nationalized health care makes less patients--not due to less people getting treatment who need it--due to less people getting treatment who don't need it.
So what you are saying is doctors are stupid to pay for malpractice insurance, because they'll only ever be faced with it once every 20 years, and when they do, they should be able to pay out of their pocket, given how much money a doctor makes in 20 years. I'm pretty sure I could save $5k a year on a doctor's salary.
If you are walking down the street and some overly litigious person crosses your path, you can be named in a lawsuit...anybody can sue anybody for anything, doesn't mean it's legitimate. And it especially doesn't mean doctors should be able to jack up their prices for it. Ask yourself this, if a doctor is immune from malpractice and drops their malpractice coverage, do you honestly believe a simple office visit will drop from $150 down to something reasonable, like $50? Of course not. They'll continue to charge $150, and when questioned why so expensive, they'd just say "malpractice" fears, without even actually having malpractice insurance.
Slashdot Mirror
I have 15 years of experience working on Top Secret programs for the government. Um, how exactly do you propose I show you my portfolio? Fortunately for me, I've been able to get three jobs in the past 5 years based on my statement that I can't show you the actual work but I can tell you what it is I made and how I made it.
Most people are terrible judges at their own learning rate, though. We all THINK we are fast learners, when very few of us are. The only way to know is by having a trial-period and a mentor.
I'm a lead. I like my two worker bees. They are both better than me at everything technical, but neither could be a lead (yet). I don't feel threatened one bit, even though I know both of them are smarter and technically more competent than me. Plus, most organizations don't replace leads without a reason, so unless I go to another position, my two guys won't get my job. If I lead like I were in fear of my job, I'd be a terrible lead.
Best post this week!
Who is going to pick someone who is smarter than them, or who is going to give them competition for promotion?
The millions of us who are driven by competition? The millions of us who are results-oriented? The millions of us who put the greater-good ahead of personal interest? The millions of us with a little humility?
I guess I just found my new interview question, because I'd have a hard time hiring somebody with your attitude--especially as more and more projects become collaborative and team-oriented.
I quit my last job because I'd rather work with people who are smarter and more talented than I am. Being surround by dumb, untalented people makes for a very unrewarding career. The interview process at (giant tech company in the news a lot) was everything I had hoped for and I'm glad that the people I'll be working with are up to my standards.
... it were extremely difficult because almost everybody in the industry needed 3 years of full-time development experience on the resume before they'd even talk to me.
This is how it is for pretty much every non-blue collar job ever. Why do software devs think they've encountered some sort of new social phenomenon?
Go to college, get a degree, start low, gain experience, change jobs a couple of times or get promoted internally. By the time a person reaches 40 he/she will be doing fine.
What metric do you use to determine which candidates will make good junior developers?
I like the "90-day-trial-period" metric, personally.
All good ideas...for people with tons of free time. When you get a job doing this stuff, you get 8-10 hours a day to do it. I'm hard pressed to think of any time outside of my work hours that I have 8-10 hour blocks of time to do stuff for fun.
I thought good colleges ding you for going "above and beyond" the requirements...or at least they should. More important to your coding skills is your ability to follow directions ;-)
Applications you've made because of a school project will not count.
SO not true. Most people don't have time or a even a reason to be writing code while they are in school and school projects can be the only thing you have to show if you are a recent grad.
I suppose my graduate research will not count either?
Easily solved with a decent intern program. Find the good ones before they graduate, then hire them after they graduate (at bargain salary to boot).
The geeksphere tends to forget that some jobs don't need anyone more than the guy right out of college. There's lot's of legwork that needs to be done and if you ask anyone who's been out of school for more than a couple of years to do it, they'll come on slashdot and bitch about being treated like a code monkey.
Well shit, seems firefox on Windows7 is having a bad link day, as I now can click the non-underline phrase "why the new guy can't code".
So I went to click on the link to get more details--except there's no link. For example, exactly what is wrong with the interview process, and why can't the guy actually code? Instead, I get a lame rant about Johnny can't code because he doesn't have a web site, he went to college, and HR sucks?
Seriously lame.
Hopefully the comments will be better. Imagine that, I actually wanted to read TFA for once!
I'm not saying they are finding things that don't exist, I'm saying they have EVERY INCENTIVE to do so, because regardless if the malady exists or not, they get their compensation from the insurance company. This is ruining our economy while doctors play golf and drive fancy German cars.
I suggest that a 10 minute office visit costing $150 would infer that doctors make a lot of money. I make $40 an hour and live very comfortably. Quadruple my hourly rate and I'm straight up rich. What in the world are you smoking that would make you think doctors aren't making near the money I seem to think?
Now if you'd like to have a civil conversation, I'm all ears, otherwise piss off.
Heh, 42 and I still don't need glasses!
I think I figured out the problem. I meant to say "myth" to this:
Only when doctors start putting costs in front of patients and when patients have to make decisions about how they spend their health care dollars will this entire situation begin to be reined in.
Myth, as in it's a myth to ever believe doctors will ever start putting costs in front of us so we can make better choices.
The intent with HDHPs is we are supposedly given bargaining power to shop around with our money. Reality is there is no such bargaining power because doctors are just like cable companies. No competition. It's even worse, there IS no price transparency like the HDHP advocates proclaim...the price is the price. My wife has had spinal fusion, a baby, and my kids have had ear tubes and pneumonia surgeries with our HDHP. In each case, the overall cost was slightly lower, based on "negotiated prices", but the costs to ME were far greater. $5000 each year for the past three years came straight out of my pocket before the insurance company paid one dime, AND I had to put in $2500 in premiums over the year. Compare that to a traditional HMO and I would have paid something like $2500 in premiums and $500-$1000 out of pocket deductible, plus 5-10 $20 co-pays. Even if that were cheaper in total, it is still ridiculous to expect the average American is going to have $5000 tucked away for their first $5k of medical expenses every year. We are fortunate, in that we have some disposable income.
They don't get you any kind of leverage in the situation. That's all determined by private pricing between doctors and insurance companies.
this is exactly right, which is why HDHPs are terrible business and awful legislation.
You are a minor percentage of your doctor's business and he has no need to cater to your needs because he's protected by insurance companies and the laws that they've helped write to force most people to go to their employers for the one size fits all plans that make insurance companies the most money.
Exactly. This is why HDHPs are a farce. This is why the Libertarians and Republicans who support them are absolutely wrong.
I recently was researching getting a vasectomy. The doctors that I went to each had done thousands of them, yet their offices could NOT tell me what the procedure would cost. No clue. How was I supposed to make an informed decision to even fund my FSA without being able to get a price on a procedure that's routine?
Exactly. How am I, as an HDHP holder, supposed to be able to shop around for the best services when there are no price tags?
If you went in to a auto shop and they couldn't tell you what it cost to get your brake pads replaced, you'd turn around and walk back out.
Wait, we totally agree. But with an HDHP, I have no option other than the very few doctors in my area who will accept my HDHP, so I can't just walk out.
You even mentioned that most doctors won't even take your plan. That alone shows that you didn't get it. If a doctor doesn't even have to accept your high deductible personal health plan then something in the system is broken.
Wait, how is it that I don't get it? I totally get it, which is why I hate my HDHP and am bitching about it right now, right along with you.
There's institutional collusion between doctors and insurance companies that current health care legislation supports in every way. It needs to be torn down and replaced with something that allows transparency, accountability, choice, efficiency, and effectiveness for each citizen.
Exactly correct. HDHPs regulations should be eliminated now. Worst piece of legislation this century.
Sorry I was vague with my "myth" comment. Otherwise I don't think there would have been a need for either of our responses ;-)
I'm pretty sure you're a combative asshat who is too lazy to think about the numbers in your own post. I was expecting you to post something like, "doctors spend 25% of their earning defending against malpractice suits and insurance". Instead, you prove to us that the idea that doctors are jacking up practices to cover their malpractice costs is purely a myth.
Clearly some people go to the ... ER even when there's clearly no need to...
Yeah, we call them the "uninsured". Give me a public option so we can have our emergency rooms back for, you know, emergencies.
At what point does preventative treatment start paying off? I'm 42 and an annual office visit is $150 for me for the doctor to ask me a few questions, check my respiration, hit my knew with a rubber hammer and send me off. What could he possibly find and prevent other than bad knees or a chest infection?
Myth. I have a high deductible health plan (HDHP) that is supposed to give me options and leverage. Instead, I get the same ridiculous prices by every doctor (because they are like cable companies) but I get to pay $5000 out of pocket instead of $500 with a traditional HMO. Most doctors won't even take my HDHP. HDHP is a libertarian/republican wet dream that simply doesn't work in the real wold, because there IS no competition, and there IS no flexibility in pricing.
I'm surprised not more people have blamed patients for causing more patients. That's the problem with the US system and capitalism. Marketing has created generations of patients. We are overly medicated, hypochondriacs, thanks to the great pharma-commercials! The basic premise of nationalized health care makes less patients--not due to less people getting treatment who need it--due to less people getting treatment who don't need it.
So what you are saying is doctors are stupid to pay for malpractice insurance, because they'll only ever be faced with it once every 20 years, and when they do, they should be able to pay out of their pocket, given how much money a doctor makes in 20 years. I'm pretty sure I could save $5k a year on a doctor's salary.
If you are walking down the street and some overly litigious person crosses your path, you can be named in a lawsuit...anybody can sue anybody for anything, doesn't mean it's legitimate. And it especially doesn't mean doctors should be able to jack up their prices for it. Ask yourself this, if a doctor is immune from malpractice and drops their malpractice coverage, do you honestly believe a simple office visit will drop from $150 down to something reasonable, like $50? Of course not. They'll continue to charge $150, and when questioned why so expensive, they'd just say "malpractice" fears, without even actually having malpractice insurance.
The fear of litigation alone is sufficient to make doctors order all kinds of tests
An irrational fear of litigation alone is sufficient to make doctors look like greedy bitches.
How would you like to work in an industry where you are told here is what you get paid by the government?
Doesn't seem to be a problem in England, Germany, Belgium, France, Norway, etc. etc. etc.
Capitalism is great an all, but some things (like the health of citizens) are more important than profit.